CPAC: Consevatives Vote for Ron Paul

Remove all ads!

The problem with this is that, in only arguing from individual rights, and only looking at the rights of the mother (as the foetus has no rights), you only get one side of an arguement. There isn't even any opposition. The only concern you have is the mother's individual rights (if I understood that correctly). If you want to understand the arguement, you have to move beyond this. The mother has rights, yes, but the State has responsabilities. Here, the two oppose each other.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you explain that a little more? Since the topic is the woman's rights, it's natural for the woman to be the center of the conversation.

This is true, but it's pretty darn close, as DR pointed out earlier.

That's a pity because, essentially, that's the State's concern in this. I know, it's a slightly extreme way of putting it, but Aldeth did ask why abortions were tragic.

And in such cases I think all parents will say quite firmly that the idea that they would be better off if the mother had had an abortion is pure and utter BS, and abhorrent BS. I know, you weren't exactly saying it, but you were going there quickly. In the case you pointed out, the whole reason it happened is because the parents love the child and want the child.

Well, since you asked for it, how about the Equal Protection clause. It seems to me that the Government is holding men to a higher standard than it is women. Not very effectively, mind you, but it is.

Ron Paul being pro-life makes him a more conservative Libertarian, but it doesn't really oppose the whole Libertarian movement. As your quote pointed out earlier:

I wouldn't say that makes them more Republican than Libertarian, just on the Republican-leaning side of Libertarianism.

What you're ignoring is that she also agreed to the consequences of sex. That may include pregnancy, STDs, and the like. She may take steps to reduce the risks of such, but as soon as she decides to have sex, she decides to accept whatever risk of such remains.

And again, the government does have something to say. Even between consenting adults, incest is illegal.

Unfortunately, 'self-evident' doesn't cut it in court. I consider the life and rights of an unborn child 'self-evident', but the courts don't. Though, really, I think the disagreement is whether our rights to our own bodies is unlimited rather than 'self-evident'.

You can make the exact same arguement for drunk driving, for use of marajuana, or any other drug, or for a lot of other crimes. Anyway, the issue isn't that she had sex, but what she's doing afterward.

 

Well, that's what it comes down to. But whose body is it? The fetus has dibs on the mother's body? Not really, it certainly does not. Maybe at a certain point, yes, because by allowing the fetus to grow to the point of where it takes on a life of its own the mother has agreed to allow for it. So I agree with Drew, that abortion should only be in the first three months, unless there is a threat, or a severe medical reason why the fetus should be aborted (such as the fetus develops cancer or disease).

Most people who are for choice also hate abortion, but the difference is that they hate tyranny more. Liberty is sacred.

It still takes two people to have sex. Is the State going to intrude into the sexual lives of couples? If I am understanding you right, you feel the government should make "safe sex" a part of a legal process in forcing both father and mother to have the child. Correct? You are also forcing the father to become a dad because he did not have safe sex with his partner.

You are forcing the mother to have the child under duress. The courts always consider what presssures are placed upon a party in an agreement. So sometimes the courts don't see it your way and award the child back to the original mother. That screws over the couple that rasied the child as their own.

How so? Can you explain that this is what the courts intended?

I don't get this either. I didn't say it makes him a Republican, only that he is not representative of being a Libertarian, and more Republican on this issue. Of course there are Libertarians who oppose choice. There are Democrats who do as well, believe it or not. That doesn't make them "Republican leaning" Democrats.

So what? You are being petty in this instance, and you know you are.

Actually, it does "cut it" in court, because a woman CAN get an abortion. You are the one who is outside the law, for the most part.

No, you can't. The proof is in the laws already on the books. For the most part, abortion is LEGAL, the other things you cited are NOT. You can stop the phony comparisons.

 

NOG, you do realize it was the christian religions that defined 'life' -- life begins when the fetus passes through the birth canal, accepts a spirit or soul, and takes its first breath. According to basic religious beliefs that child is not alive and has no soul until after it takes its first breath.

A stillborn child is not given a name, the parents receive no tax write-offs, the hospital disposes of the body as if was simply organic waste.

Until the definition of life is changes any arguments about fetus rights is really moot.

 

Either the fetus has dibs on the mother's body or the mother has dibs on the fetus's body. That's the debate.

I can't understand this. The only reason I see to hate abortion is because it kills a child (biassed opinion, I know, but it's the arguement). If you believe that, but value liberty as well, you must be against murder laws.

I'm not advocating 'safe sex' legislation, just legislation that makes people accept the responsability for their sexual actions (men and women, yes). That's no more legislating safe sex than arresting a drunk driver is legislating designated drivers.

I don't think you got my point. My point was that, in these cases, the mother asks for the child back because she loves the child and wants the child. If anything, these cases are further arguement against abortion because, like the death penalty, it's irrevocable.

Oh, I don't think it's what the courts intended at all, just what they effected. Constitutionality is rarely concerned with intent of laws, after all. My point is that the law gives the woman two chances to change her mind: with an abortion or with an adoption. The man is given none.

My point was that Libertarian beliefs can side on either side. It's not quite the same as the typical social conservative belief on abortion (though it is quite similar).

No, I'm not. You said 'the government has little to say in the matter of sex between two consenting adults'. Except that the government does have things to say, especially where consequences are concerned.

Again, you misread me. My 'doesn't cut it in court' point was toward the reasoning of 'it's self-evident'. Abortion is legal not because a woman's rights are self-evident, but because the courts agreed with you (or you with them).

THAT'S MY POINT!! The law makes special allowances for one, but not for the others, when the logic behind them is the same.

Yes, I realize this. I was just stating belief.

 

I.e. you want to outlaw abortion (or also preventatives?) so whoever has sex will have to have the children as well? In for a penny, in for a pound? Is that what you mean with 'taking responsibility for their sexual actions'?

 

Outlaw abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger, yes. Outlaw preventative measures (i.e. condoms, birth control pills, etc.) no, not on your life. Again, thanks for making blanket, baseless assumptions.

 

I know that's your point; it just doesn't make any sense to me, because niether having sex or an abortion are illegal, but you seem bent on trying to paint them as being so.

How so? what does the mother need the fetus's body for?

Yes, put they mostly don't. That's why I posted the link, because it portrays the Libertarian viewpint, that is largely pro-choice. If you read the link you will see this.

http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/

Again, read the views of libertarians on the issue. Of course, there are always going to be exceptions. Right now a Democrat is holding up health care because of his pro-life views. There are some Democrats who are pro-life, just as there are Republicans who are pro-choice, and obviously there are Libertarians who are pro-life as well.

---------- Added 1 hours, 26 minutes and 42 seconds later... ----------

Here's the link directly to the Libertarian Party:

http://www.lp.org/platform

 

Where on earth have I even hinted that sex is illegal? And as for abortion, my point is that it could be illegal and still in line with the reasoning used to support other laws. Or, actually, my point is that, were the same reasoning behind abortion applied to other laws, those other laws would be struck down for the same reasons.

If she wants an abortion, it's death. The two organisms are bound. If the fetus is to live, it needs the mother. If the mother wants to be free of it, the fetus has to die. Anyone who makes claim to decide whether another life can continue or not (and biologically this is an independant life) has a claim over it. In context, the only claim I can see is one of ownership (as an owner owns a pet). I say this because typically death decisions fall into two categories: ownership and medical power of attorney. Since medical power of attorney decisions around death are focused on 'quality of life' and 'would he want to live like this', I think it's safe to discount that as the claim. That being said, this could be argued as a third case, neither power of attorney nor ownership.

 

Because no matter what, there is always the risk of a woman getting PG. By forcing her to be a breeder you are restricting her sexual behavior.

The fetus requires the use of the mother's body, she does not require the fetus.

 

I think my outcomes based point still has some validity even if the mother doesn't need a fetus to survive.


Like I brought up before the one person't freedom ends where another's nose begins. The mother and fetus/developing person impact each other-but only one is given legal rights to kill the other.


A woman whose life is at stake can choose to forgo some necessary medical treatment for the sake of a baby she is carrying but that is still her decision so it is her choice to make that sacrifice or, as is understandable for many people, not.

I know someone brought up slavery before (didn't read it) but it could be used to refer to a point in time when one person's freedom was legally expanded beyond another's nose to a very large degree. This, rightfully by most people today, isn't viewed as a good thing.

Also as something of a left winger (bleeding heart liberal and all) I have to ask who is the weakest and most downtrodden party in this situation. Even thought we haven't quite made gender equality in our society yet (despite great strides) I would say that the baby is the weakest/most downtrodden party because it is the only party whose life is not placed highly. Adult men and women party to such a discussion have value placed on their lives as a given, not so with the baby.

I'm all for gay rights, free condoms in high school, consenting adults to being able to sleep with whoever, the freedom to join or not join given religions, and so on but also for people to be allowed to live (yes I'm against the death penalty too-its done to people already locked up and cannot be compensated for to an individual who is wrongfully convicted).

Thus even if you remove any hint of religious tradition from this topic I think there is still an argument that can be made against abortion.

 

It has become quite clear that this has become the typical rant about "baby killing," "murder," and so forth that most abortion discussions degrade and fall into at some point. And I think everyone here has argued in good faith despite such inflammatory rethoric. I'm not even going to bother to repeat myself, as I find myself doing more and more on this thread, while everybody continues to ignore each other's points and continues on with his own rants regarding baby killing, slavery, sexual represssion, who has rights, who doesn't, what the current law is and analogies that go nowhere and so forth. And while certainly no one's opinion is going to be changed, there doesn't seem to be anything new or worthwhile going on here. So for me, at least, I see little point in continuing on.

 

This is a cop-out, and a cheap one. No one here has been ranting about this. At worst, we've mentioned that perspective, which is a valid perspective, as part of the arguement over the rights of the unborn (a valid part of the arguement)

This, on the other hand, I understand. I just have one last question. Given the points that have been made on Constitutionality, can you see how the Supreme Court could (not did or should) uphold a state's ban on abortions?

 

Please, NOG, list what rights the unborn have...and keep in mind it wasn't the pro-choice crowd that defined life and when rights begin.

There have been many instances where the US government has had to step in and tell the states they were doing something "wrong" -- Roe v. Wade was simply one of those. There was nothing unconstitutional about it and there are no reasons the Supreme Court should ever uphold any state ban on abortion.

Any changes should be done in an amendment, but that's not going to happen because there are not enough votes to pass. So instead the pro-life crowd want to circumvent the entire system of government and put justices in office who will vote their religious beliefs over the Constitution -- not a very honorable thing to do IMO.

 

The problem with going directly to legal system as it stands now T2Bruno is that the legal system has been flawed (we have commented on it already).

Talking about how many "legal" rights babies have now doesn't mean they shouldn't have more rights.

At one time it was illegal to buy or sell beer, many people thought that law was wrong and we can now.

At one time it was considered legal to own slaves. That was legal at one time and changed.

At one time women were legally viewed as the almost the property of their husbands (couldn't vote, had problems getting work as that was their husband's concern supposedly, and so on). That all was legal at one time and changed.

What is "legal" doesn't always define what is justifiable. You may have forgotten but you should know that there are Pro-Life arguments based on something very different from religion. Most pointedly you should know there are Pro-Life Atheists and Agnostics (a point that NOG didn't realize and was pointed out to him by a Pro-Life Atheist in a different thread on these boards).

The claim that this is just imposition of religion over the Constitution is inaccurate because it fails to acknowledge that while the most vocal anti-abortion groups are related to religion not all of them are and that the issues at hand can be concerning to people outside of a religious context. Most pointedly equality is a concern. Like I said before. Most legal abortions involve situation where the party given the least representation, rights, respect, and thus having the most vulnerability is the baby.

 

Well that got us exactly ... nowhere.

Shifting to the "let's see how many emotionally charged subjects I can shove in here" tactic was pretty ridiculous -- especially since all those examples ARE amendments which is exactly what I said should happen. A very simple principle that some appear to be missing here is that a 'non-entity' cannot be vulnerable -- a fetus is not vulnerable because it is not considered alive until it draws it's first breath ... so, to state it once again, the definition of life must be changed to accomplish any change in the system.

This is why it's pointless to argue the issue -- the very people who want the change don't want to do what is necessary to make the change, nor do they want the additional ramifications of those legal changes.

'End Abortion', 'End World Hunger', 'World Peace', 'End Poverty' ... are all great dreams to build a modern utopia and have one thing in common; not enough people get off their lazy asses to make any of it happen.

We want to end abortion but ignore the underlying issues that lead to the increase in abortion. Ending abortion will take a combination of education to prevent unwanted pregnancies and socio-econmic stimulus to help those young mothers who want to keep their children actually succeed in life. Right now the pro-choice people would rather throw taunts at the young women faced with a terrible choice instead of helping them through the pregnancy and ensuring these young people can take care of their children (emotionally and financially).

So long as the choice is an abortion or a life on welfare in the projects ... that choice is simple. So long as the choice is an abortion or have your family ostracize you for being a slut ... that choice is simple. So long as the choice is an abortion or give up your dreams of a future ... that choice is simple.

You want to stop abortion; help young people make good decisions about preventing pregnancy (instead of moronically saying 'sex is bad') and give young women good choices.

Edit: Thanks dmc, you posted while I was ranting.

 

That's the thing though - babies have pretty much the same rights as everyone else. The only rights they lack are those which are aged-based. They cannot vote, drive, consume alcohol, etc., but they have all the other rights that everyone else has.

The thing is, the 14th Amendment applies to all citizens of the US. Babies are citizens. Fetuses are not. Fetuses aren't citizens, they aren't people, they aren't babies. The 14th - or any other amendment - doesn't apply to them.

 

T2 your rant ignores a few of the things I said.


And if it is truly needed I wouldn't oppose amending the constitution.

But my last comment directly addressed issues you brought up in your prior comment.

I agree with the idea of dealing with the underlying issues. But your gripe that just opponents to abortion just say sex is bad utterly ignored where I said in one of my prior posts that I do not oppose (at least where the law is concerned) any consenting adults choosing to get laid.

That is ignoring part of what I said by complaining about the stereotype of what a Pro-Lifer is rather than what I said.

And I think the comment that someone or something isn't alive until it takes it first breath is biologically wrong.

Though it may be possible to argue that since the cells in a baby's body are breathing (just without using the baby's own lungs yet) your comment could arguably be used for a Pro-Life argument.

 

pplr -- read what I've said, not what you think I've said.